Saying “Jesus Christ,” as if “Christ” was His last name.

Restored from the Empower Network archive (2011–2017), lightly edited to meet our current advertising standards. Views are the original author’s.

 efei

 Moving on to the next religious deception, if “Christ” was Yahowsha’s title, and it’s not, there would still be no justification for writing or saying “Jesus Christ,” as if “Christ” was His last name. Moreover, without the definite article, “Christ Jesus” is also wrong. Should “Christ” be valid, and again it is not, the only appropriate use of the title would be as “the Christ.”

As we dig deeper, what we discover is that Classical Greek authors used chrio, the basis of “Christos – Christ” to describe the “application of drugs.” A legacy of this reality is the international symbol for medicines and the stores in which they are sold—Rx—from the Greek Rho Chi, the first two letters in chrio. So those who advocate “Christ,” and its derivative, “Christian,” are unwittingly suggesting that Yahowsha’, and those who follow Him, are“drugged.”

Christians who protest that “Christ” is simply a transliteration of Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, either are not aware, or don’t want you to know, that you will find only one place in the whole of the Greek text prior to the mid 4^th-century where any variation of chrio was actually written—and it does not apply to Yahowsha’. All references to the Ma’aseyah’s title were presented using the Divine Placeholders ΧΣ, ΧΥ, ΧΩ, and ΧΝ.

The only time we find a derivative of chrio in God’s voice is when the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ toys with the Laodicean Assembly (representing Protestant Christians living in today’s Western Democracies) in His seventh prophetic letter. To appreciate His sense of humor, and to fully understand the point He was making, realize that the Laodiceans were wealthy and self-reliant. They made a fortune promoting their own brand of ointment for the ears and eyes known as “Phrygian powder” under the symbol “Rx.” So referencing their healthcare system, Yahowsha’ admonished: “I advise that you…rub (egchrio – smear) your eyes with medicinal cake (kollourion – a drug preparation for ailing eyes) in order that you might see.” (Revelation 3:18) Therefore, in the singular reference to chrio, the root of christo, in the totality of the pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts of the so-called “Christian New Testament,” Yahowsha’ used it to describe the application of drugs.

To further indict “Christ” and “Christian,” even if the tertiary definition of chriso, “anointed,” were intended, that connotation still depicts the “application of a medicinal ointment or drug.” And should we ignorantly and inadvisably jettison this pharmaceutical baggage, we’d still be left with other insurmountable problems associated with “Christ.”

First, the Scriptural evidence from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms strongly suggests that Yahowsha’s title was not “ha Mashiach,” which means “the Anointed,” but instead “ha Ma’aseyah,” which translates to “the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah.” (More on this in a moment.)

Second, “ha Ma’aseyah,” as a Hebrew title, like the name Yahowsha’, should have been transliterated (presented phonetically) in Greek and also English, not translated. For example, the titles Rabbi, Imam, Pharaoh, Czar, Sheik, and Pope were all transliterated, not translated.

Yahowsha’ was not Greek, did not speak Greek, and did not have a Greek name or a Greek title, so to infer that He did by crudely transliterating Ieosus Christos “Jesus Christ” is grossly misleading and deceptive.

Third, there is no justification for using Hellenized nomenclature when addressing a Hebrew concept. And since Yahowsha’ did not communicate in Greek, that language is nothing more than a translation of what He actually conveyed in Hebrew and Aramaic – a language closely allied with Hebrew. This would be like transliterating Genghis’ “Khan” title, which means “ruler” in Mongolian, “Sheik Jinjeus,” because we like the letter J, the “eus” ending derived from Greek grammar, and sheik has the same meaning in Arabic. Worse, how about rendering Caesar Augustus, “Hairy August,” as that is what caesar means in English. It’s idiotic.

Fourth, the textual evidence suggests that the Divine Placeholders ΧΣ, ΧΥ, ΧΩ, and ΧΝ were not based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, as those who have an aversion to all things Hebrew would have you believe. Consider this: writing about the great fire which swept through Rome in 64 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus (the classical world’s most authoritative voice) in Annals XV.44.2-8, revealed: “All human efforts…and propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the fire was the result of an order [from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestucians (Chrestuaneos) by the populous. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. And a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Iudaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination when daylight had expired.” Chrestus and christos are different words in Greek with very different meanings.

But there is more, the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition Greek New Testament reveals that Chrestus (χρηστὸς) was scribed in 1 Peter 2:3, not Christos. Their references for this include Papyrus 72 and the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant witnesses of Peter’s (actually of Shim’own Kephas’) letter.

In Shim’own’s epistle, one attested by both ancient manuscripts, the Disciple and Apostle tells us: “As a newborn child, true to our real nature (logikos – in a genuine, reasonable, rational, and sensible manner), earnestly desire and lovingly pursue (epipotheo – long for, showing great affection while yearning for) the pure and unadulterated (adolos – that which is completely devoid of dishonest intent or deceit, and thus is perfect) milk in order to grow in respect to salvation, since we have experienced (geuomai – partaken and tasted, have been nourished by) Yahowah (ΚΣ – from a Divine Placeholder) as the Useful Implement and Upright Servant (Chrestus – the Upright One who is a superior, merciful, kind, and good tool).” (1 Shim’own / Peter 2:2-3) The fact that we find Chrestus written in the Codex Sinaiticus, and the placeholder ΧΡΣ written in P72 in the same place in this passage, we have an early affirmation that the Divine Placeholder representing the title “Ma’aseyah” was based upon the Greek Chrestus, not Christos.

And while Chrestus isn’t Yahowsha’s title, it is at least an apt translation of it. Chrestus means “useful implement,” and “upright servant,” as well as “merciful one.” It was used to “depict the good and beneficial work of a moral person.” So rather than being “drugged,” a Chrestucian is a “useful implement, an upright servant, and a moral person working beneficially” with Yah. Therefore, while using Chrestus would have been an honest mistake, at least, unlike Christos, it would not have been a deliberate deception.

With a second and third myth resolved, let’s turn our attention to Yahowsha’s actual title. To begin, let’s consider the issues of consistency and relevance. Most every important name, title, and word associated with Yahowah and our yashuw’ah / salvation bears God’s signature: “Yah.” As I have mentioned previously (and actually reveal in the Dabar – Word chapter of this Volume of Yada Yah), there are 260 names appearing over 10,000 times in Scripture which incorporate “Yah” within them. So please consider the likelihood that Yahowah’s most important title would not be included in that list.

The second insight I’d like you to consider relative to the validity of Ma’aseyah versus Mashiach and Messiah is the number of times one versus the other appears in God’s Word. You may be surprised to learn that we know for certain that Ma’aseyah and Ma’seyahuw were written twenty-three times throughout the Prophets and Writings (in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah, in 1&2 Chronicles, in Ezra / Ezrah, and in Nachemyah / Nehemiah). Mashiach, on the other hand, may have been scribed twice, both times in Dan’el / Daniel. (The reason I wrote “may” will become evident in a moment.)

Third, the textual spelling from which Ma’aseyah and Mashiach are vocalized is identical save the concluding letter. Throughout Yah’s Word in Ancient and Paleo Hebrew (twenty-three times in five different books), we discover that the final letter in Ma’aseyah is Hey (ה), providing the same “ah” sound as we find at the end of Yahowah’s name. But in the book of Daniel, the only one originally scribed in both Aramaic and Babylonian Hebrew, we find a Chet (ח) conveying the hard “ch” sound. And while these letters would never have been confused in paleo-Hebrew, they are very similar in Babylonian Hebrew (ה vs. ח). Once a scroll has been unfurled and handled a number of times this minor distinction (the length of the left leg) is often lost.

Since the evidence is our guide to the truth, be aware that there are eight partial manuscripts of Daniel in the Dead Sea Scroll collection. These were copied between 125 BCE and 50 CE. It should be noted that all four scrolls containing material from the first eight chapters of the book are initially scribed in Babylonian Hebrew, but they switch to Aramaic in the midst of chapter 2, verse 4, and then revert back to Hebrew at the beginning of the eighth chapter. (Along these lines, it is also interesting to be aware that the longer Roman Catholic version of Daniel, with the Prayer of Azariah, the Song of Three Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, isn’t supported by any Qumran manuscript.)

None of the eight scrolls found in the Dead Sea caves provide any witness to the text between Daniel 7:18 and 10:4. And unfortunately, the two passages with references to the Ma’aseyah or ha Mashiach, Daniel 9:25 and 9:26, are right in the midst of this void. That means the oldest manuscript attesting to this minor difference (the length of the left leg on the concluding letter) with major implications (Ma’aseyah or Mashiach) was written by rabbinical Masoretes in the 11^th-century CE. In this manuscript, known as the Codex Leningradensis (dated to 1008 CE and published in 1937), it is clear to me that the rabbinical agenda affirmed in the 3^rd of Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Judaism, which states that God is incorporeal, is on display to distance the Rabbinical Mashiach from Yahowah—a G-d whose name rabbis will neither write nor speak. As such, the evidence on behalf of Ma’aseyah is strong and on behalf of Mashiach is weak.

Fourth, every Scriptural name and title, from Isaiah to Zachariah, from Mount Moriah to the Messiah, which is transliterated “iah” today, is actually “yah” in the revealed text. Just as Qumbayah and Halaluyah speak volumes to those with an ear for Yah’s Word today, so does the legacy of “iah” at the end of “Messiah.”

Fifth, Ma’aseyah provides a perfect depiction of how Yahowah used Yahowsha’. As Ma’aseyah, He was “Yah’s Implement, Doing the Work of Yahowah.” Ma’aseyah even serves as the perfect complement to Yahowsha’, whereby we are told: “Salvation is from Yah.”

Sixth, now that we know that the Divine Placeholders used in the Greek text to represent the Ma’aseyah were based upon Chrestus, not Christos, we find a perfect match. Both words convey the same message: Yahowsha’ is Yah’s “Useful Implement,” His “Upright Servant,” who does “Good, Moral, and Beneficial Work.” And that is better than being “Christ/Drugged.”

It is therefore reasonable for us to conclude that Yahowah assigned the title Ma’aseyah to Yahowsha’.

As has been our custom, let’s examine Ma’aseyah through the lens of Ancient Hebrew—the language of revelation. The first letter, m Mah, which is now called Mem, was conveyed by way of waves on water. It symbolized the origin of life and cleansing. And even today, mah in Hebrew means “water.”

The second letter is o Ayin. This character, which is also found in Yahowsha’s name, was drawn to depict an eye. It was used to convey the ideas of sight, observation, knowledge, perspective, and understanding.

The third letter in Ma’aseyah is Sin, which is called a x Samech today. Its graphic symbol was akin to a thorn, a hard sharp object which was known to pierce. It came from a bush which served as a protective barrier from carnivores and ill-tempered men. It conveyed the ideas of cutting, piercing, separating, and dividing, in addition to shielding and protecting.

The last two letters in Ma’aseyah are mirrored in the beginnings of Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s names: ei. As we now know, the i Yowd was drawn to represent the outstretched arm and open hand of God, and it symbolized His power and authority to do whatever work was necessary.

The final letter in Ma’aseyah is e Hey, whose pictographic form revealed a person reaching up and pointing to the heavens. It conveyed the importance of observing God, and of reaching up to Him for assistance. No one was better at this than Yahowsha’ ha Ma’aseyah.

The picture painted by these historical characters – eixom – collectively reveals that the Ma’aseyah is the source of life and of spiritual cleansing for those who know and understand Him, who observe His words and deeds from the proper perspective. While He was pierced for our sins, and while He came to bring division, He has the power to protect and shield. As Yahowah’s representative, the Ma’aseyah comes with the power and authority of God. He is literally the hand of God doing the work of God. Those who recognize these things, and who reach up and rely upon Him, will find Him ready and willing to assist.

********

“An Introduction to God” is found at

And Was Writen by Craig of

All Glory be to Yahweh!

*******

Build a Swimming Pool in Kenya

*******

The Nairobi Business Directory –

*******

Make Money Online – For Real –